TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 980
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and he did not comply with the demand and hence complaint was filed by the complainant and the Trial Court after taking the cognizance, examined the complainant as P.W.1 and the other witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 83. On the other hand, the revision petitioner is also examined as D.W.1 and examined other four witnesses as D.W.2 to D.W.5 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 12. The Commissioner's report is marked as Ex.C.1. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, including Ex.C.1, sentenced the accused to pay an amount of Rs. 38,55,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 3. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal and the Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence. Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would mainly contend that both the judgment of conviction and sentence and also confirmation suffers from legality....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e possibility that both the cheques could have been written with the same instrument and at the same time cannot be ruled out. Inspite of the said report, both the Courts have committed an error. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that the Trial Court has not discussed the cause of action arisen with regard to the claim is concerned. The learned counsel would contend that in the chief examination, the complainant improved his case, but no such averments in the complaint regarding improvisation in the complaint. Hence, the order passed by the Trial Court suffers from legality and its correctness. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the amount was paid for a period of three years and in pursuance of the receipt of the said amount, on different dates he has executed the promissory notes, which are marked before the Trial Court and also acknowledged the receipt of the said amount. The revision petitioner not disputed those documents, including the document Ex. P.2 issued in the year 2007. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner himself has given the complaint against the respondent herein, wherein he has categorically admitted that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,000/- and cheque which is marked as Ex. P.2 is not disputed by the petitioner and the same is admitted. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that notice Ex. P.5 is very cryptic and not given any details of the financial transaction. The said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the very petitioner himself has acknowledged the receipt of the amount of Rs. 26 lakhs in terms of Ex. P.26 that was issued in the year 2004. Hence, it is clear that there was a transaction between the petitioner and the respondent. It is also important to note that the complainant/respondent not only got marked Ex. P.2 cheque and also issued the legal notice Ex. P.5. No doubt, the postal receipts discloses the issuance of notices against the petitioners in respect of four addresses and Exs.P.10 to 13 are the notices returned un-served and Exs.P.14 to 17 are postal covers. In the cross-examination, the petitioner has categorically admitted that out of four addresses, admitted one of the address and based on the said admission and taking note of the postal receipts having sent the notices through certificate of posting also, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otices are in respect of earlier transaction and subsequent to subject matter of the cheque Ex. P.2 that there are no such two notices and hence the said contention cannot be accepted. 11. The contention of the revision petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts failed to accept the defence of the revision petitioner though he examined himself as D.W.1 and examined other witnesses and the Trial Court also taken note of though D.W.4 was examined, who is the co-brother, he was not subjected for cross-examination and his evidence is not accepted. D.W.5 also speaks with regard to the transaction between the parties. The documents which have been marked clearly makes out the case by the complainant/respondent and not in support of the defence of the petitioner counsel that he had availed only an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs. What made him to give Ex. P.26 has not been explained. No doubt, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant improvised his case in the chief examination, but the complaint does not disclose all these factors. The complaint need not necessarily explain all the events. But the respondent has relied upon the documents Exs.P....